True dat, Intel almost always wins at synthetic benches.
interestingly enough amd handily beats intel cpu's on the "welcome to the jungle" benchmark.
In the other thread which AMD was winning, it was tested @ 1280x720, and yet AMD fanboys did not say that it was useless test for some reason.
What about 1280x720 ?
Of course, they're measuring CPU performance, not GPU. Setting a high resolution would make the GPU a bottleneck.
I wouldn't test below 1366x768Originally Posted by ThePath
Quote:
LOL The other thread were AMD were wining was tested @ 1280x720
http://www.overclock.net/t/1363058/pc-games-hardware-crysis-3-in-the-cpu-test-amd-fx-processors-dominate-our-benchmarks
So, 1024x768 is low resolution but 1280x720 is high ?
Quote:
What about 1280x720 ?
Well I wouldn't say handily, both overclocked Intel cpus are within 5fps of the 8350, I'd say that's pretty much equal.
That's better, it would be perfect if they had also tested with lower graphical settings thus taking the average frames closer to 60fps which is what you play at, but either way nothing unexpected - cheaper cpus being beaten by more expensive ones...
Since when is 1 fps dominating?Originally Posted by ThePath
I replaced 1024x768 with 1920 x1080 benchmarks
I did not even notice that there is higher resolution benchmark. But the results are not so different. Intel is dominating in 2 out of the 3 benchmarks. In the jungle test, it is a tie between the 3570, 3770k and the FX-8350
You should leave both, CPU performance would be more accurate at a lower resolution.Originally Posted by ThePath
I replaced 1024x768 with 1920 x1080 benchmarks
I did not even notice that there is higher resolution benchmark. But the results are not so different. Intel is dominating in 2 out of the 3 benchmarks. In the jungle test, it is a tie between the 3570, 3770k and the FX-8350